* Both the Tribune and the Sun-Times have published profile pieces on Bruce Rauner. Most interesting nugget in the Tribune’s story…

The only way to fix the state’s fiscal woes, Rauner insists, is to effectively do away with the current pension system, though he would not seek to eliminate benefits already earned by public workers. Instead, Rauner says, going forward they all should be shifted into 401(k)-style plans that don’t guarantee minimum retirement benefits but give workers the option to invest the money.

Workers in the private sector were long ago shifted to the more volatile 401(k) plans, he argues. However, Rauner would not have the state pay to extend Social Security coverage to those same public workers, even though that is legally required for those in the private sector whether or not they have 401(k)s. [Emphasis added.]

…Adding… From a legislator…

Going to a 401(k) doesn’t necessarily trigger Social Security. In fact, as long as the employer + employee contribution into the 401(k) is at least 7.5% Social Security can be optional.

In other words, Rauner’s horrible idea isn’t illegal. But it’s still a horrible idea.

Also, he does want to eliminate some benefits. Rauner would freeze pension benefit payments at their current amount forever. No inflation protections at all for anyone. That’ll most certainly diminish pensions over not that much time.

Myles Mendoza, the executive director of Ed Choice Illinois, said when he’d get a voicemail from Rauner, he’d save it.

“It’s like the voice of God coming through your phone. It’s sort of this roaring, commanding voice,” Mendoza said, adding: “You can hear the passion coming through.” Mendoza, who said he doesn’t get funding from Rauner, has known him since 2011 to be an advocate for education reform and having a leadership style that mixes confidence and warmth.

“It was a combination of being informed, being charismatic enough to get your attention and having the sort of sheer will to direct things in the way that they have to go,” Mendoza said. “I think he absolutely will stoke the fire and once the fire’s going, he will move things in the direction they need to go.”

Mendoza said Rauner has told him you can’t get people’s attention by being a wall flower. But he denied Rauner would have a scorched earth approach to leading.

“Bruce is going to get your attention, but it’s not going to be scorched earth all the way. I’ve seen communications where — he just has a way of making sure you don’t ignore things. He is a very loving person. He has this juxtaposition between strength and compassion,” Mendoza said. “Who else in this universe is a successful businessman but really spends most of their time learning and investing in education? Why is he doing this? Because he cares about disadvantaged kids. There’s like a handful of people who care about this stuff on his level. He cares about it, he’s like consumed by it. I think that’s why he’s running for governor, because he wants to change things.”

–Rauner would not have the state pay to extend Social Security coverage to those same public workers, even though that is legally required for those in the private sector whether or not they have 401(k)s.–

Not your call, Baron. As someone who is “hands-on” and wants to run Springfield like a business, you must know that.

Pick a lane. If you get out of the pension business, you’re going to find yourself in the Social Security business.

I’m excited for the 2019 Tribune editorials bemoaning the fact that the state now has to pay more money to public workers because of “stupid, unethical, liberty-denying Social Security” (or something like that).

Everyone that wants to destroy public pensions: Be careful what you wish for. The Feds will not allow you to skip payments.

“Workers in the private sector were long ago shifted to the more volatile 401(k) plans, he argues.”

Ah, the old IPI/Civic Committee line: Private sector workers were cut, therefore so should public sector workers. Classic race to the bottom. I say race to the bottom because I read some chilling info on 401(k)s, on how some workers don’t make enough money to properly invest in them, and some wealthy corporations are not even paying into them.

Pensions were already reformed, and that might be illegal. If that’s ruled as diminishment, then how can something as volatile as 401(k) style pensions survive a court challenge?

“He is a very loving person.”

Nothing says “I love you” like attacking middle class workers’ incomes after investing them for years and profiting off of them.

I have a question about the 401k proposal if someone who knows more about pension funding can help me. It is my understanding that the pension benefits paid out depend on payments into the system by active employees in order to keep the system solvent. By continuing to pay out benefits to retirees without new payments coming in, wouldn’t that worsen the problem not only for the State but also retirees?
As far as the social security payments agree with word…run the numbers since the State will have to pay it.

Unless Rauner is totally ignorant of the state Constitution or utterly delusional, I suspect all his talk of abolishing pensions in favor of 401k’s or whatever HAS to be, at bottom, just telling voters what he thinks they want to hear so that he can get elected. Once in office he will either 1) drop his promise to abolish pensions like a hot potato and hope the voters forget he ever made it, or 2) make some perfunctory attempt to abolish said pensions only to have it struck down in court, at which point he can then throw up his hands and say “Well, at least I tried.”

Also, he does want to eliminate some benefits. Rauner would freeze pension benefit payments at their current amount forever. No inflation protections at all for anyone. That’ll most certainly diminish pensions over not that much time.

I can’t even begin to debate his ideas. He is nothing more than a salesman or worse a charlatan. He never explains anything in enough detail for me to understand how it would impact me. We need to know who he is working for.

Given the amount of money Rauner must be paying for campaign advice, he should know this. Surely he has a pension expert somewhere on contract.

More importantly, why say anything at all if you don’t have to. Just say you’ll study the issue when you get into office and make the best deal possible for Illinois taxpayers. Take a leaf from Quinn, postponing his budget address. What you are trying to sell is business ability and outsider creativity, why get mired down in specific proposals that can be endlessly picked apart between now and November, and made the subject of scary tv ads. Hubris, hubris…

Just another example of how Mitt Rauner knows little or nothing about what he talks about.
It is a little like his “solution” to work comp costs — fire all the commissioners and refuse to appoint new ones.

It looks like the poll #s are moving and voters are saying D-Lard is the choice. Makes sense that teachers and others will move families toward D-Lard and against Mitt.
The disappointment there is D-Lard’s hate speech appearance against Marriage Equality. Of course Marriage Equality is law, D-Lard was not dumb enough to talk repeal so who really cares.
Looks like everyone should go all in for D-Lard. Too bad NoTaxBill you lose —- again.

Perhaps this is a case of ignorance abounding? I’m not entirely certain, but I thought state workers were paying SS. Teachers not, other state workers were. That’s not clear in the article. I’d love to hear the Rauner quote. I wonder if there’s a tape.

Welcome to Illinois, Inc. managed by Bruce Rauner. He will terminate the pension, he will fire all the other elected officials, he will terminate everybody over 55 to lower healthcare costs and he will outsource all the other jobs. Then he will sell Illinois to another state and generate a 22% return over the course of 8 years. The wonders of a Harvard MBA!!

Switching those such as SURS and TRS (and some SERS)employees, who do not pay into one’s Social Security - to Social Security and a 401(K) is not a realistic option anyway. One’s Social Security benefits will be reduced by two-thirds of their government pension, by the Government Pension Offset rules.http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10007.pdf

Many teachers and state university employees worked at non-government jobs and paid for 40 quarters or more into Social Security before becoming part of a state pension system. Many of those employees will not get a dime of Social Security as a result of the Government Pension Offset rules.

Switching such employees only to a 401(k) is also a terrible option, and as pointed out - probably illegal.

Rauner…huh? Trying to get the State out of it social security obligations to public employees doesn’t make you look like a prudent steward of public funds. It makes you look mean-spirited and contemptuous of the law.

I’m don’t think the state has to go into Social Security even if it were to go to a 401(k)-style plan (and that’s a key point - it’s like a 401(k), not an actual 401(k)). I remember asking Daniel Biss and Elaine Nekritz about this a year or so ago and Biss said the state wouldn’t have to do Social Security too (not that either of them favored that approach). Be worth checking to see whether SURS employees who opt for the 401(k)-like self-managed plan get Social Security.

Short answer without going into all the complexities and detailed math. Over simplifying it, the $100B pension hole the State is in is for already earned benefits; switching to a 401K does not eliminate that. The State will still have to contribute every year to keep the pension funds solvent OR, when the funds run dry in about 8 - 10 years, the State will have to switch those pensioners to a “pay as you go” where the pension payments every year will have to come out of the current budget. IF it could be done to existing employees (unlikely IMO), such a scheme would have declining payments over time as us pensioners die off. However, the State will still have to do some kind of 401K match if they expect to hire anyone, let alone anyone good, to work for them. And if the 401K plan isn’t “rich” enough, the State will also have to pay into SS. A numnebr of studies have shown such a 401K / SS combined plan would be more costly than the current defined benefits plan.

Rauner is so full of himself, I can hardly stand to read anything more from him. He is vague on most of his ideas on fixing our state, or worse yet, incorrect on the legal aspects of what he proposes. Anyone that thinks this man is going to “Fix Illinois” and get any cooperation from the GA is delusional. Dillard is the only viable option at this point. Trying to buy the race for Governor really turns my stomach. That is all Rauner is trying to do.

Excluding members of SERS who were working for the State prior to 1970/1971, all members of SERS (the actual State employees as most people think of them) are also coordinated with Social Security.

The SURS members fall into an “it depends on which institution you work for” category. Some SURS are coordinated just like SERS and also coordinated with Social Security. A lot of SURS are non-coordinated and do not pay into SS.

The other three systems … TRS, GARS, JRS … all do not pay into SS; they are non-coordinated.

When just looking at total numbers, it would be safe to same “most” of the members of the 5 systems do not pay into SS.

The SURS members who went with the self-managed, on average, receive a more generous benefit than they would have under the defined benefit plan. As long as their plan has (or is projected ot have) that “rich” of a result, they ar enot required to participate in SS.

If the State tried to do things on the cheap, which they already have a history of with the Tier 2 pension reform law, the State is likely to end up with a plan with “poor” projected results and will eventually be forced to add those members to SS once it is obvious the plan is “poorer”.

I read an article that had the same estimate, and then an article analyzing the first article. The 8-10 year estimate was based on zero funds going in from anyone and all current employees retiring today. Actually many current employees will not be retiring for many years and they are still paying into the systems. Also the systems make some interest on the money they have.

That does not mean the state can continue not paying what they owe. It just means the 8-10 year estimate was inaccurate.

So, if pensions are eliminated with no social security, will Bruce be happier seeing those people who fall into a welfare state receiving their cash from the state in the way of aid? Or would everyone who financially qualifies for aid receive it except retired public workers?

As for the education thing, I know you are all going to dump all over this…

But for what it is worth a passion about education is not that unusual in the financial industry in Chicago. Lot of folks who have made real money in the industry appreciate the value their educations have given them.

You may wish he focused on improving existing public schools, but like I said there are lots of folks in the industry who really, really care about education (and not as a profit center).

I tend to error on the very conservative / most pessimistic side because (and I kind of hate to put this in writing) I could see someone coming up with the idea to just totally skip pension funding for years (since the ISC said it was up to the GA to fund it in any manner they choose) and, when the funds run dry, switch to “pay as you go” funding from the GRF every year. It’s not a good idea, it would totally blow up the State’s books on pension funding reporting, probably tank the bond rating long term, but I can still see someone delusional proposing it.

Rauner’s motive is simply to move the employees’ money somewhere it’s easier to loot. As if he and his ilk haven’t done well enough off the pension funds. He wants term limits because it will reduce name recognition, making it easier to buy future elections and perpetuate the lootocracy.

As I understand it (and I consider SURS the most confusing of all the systems), it depends if you work for one of the State Universities or one of the Community Colleges. I have friends in both situations; one of them is basically under the TRS style rules with some SURS options and the other is basically under the SERS rules.

The really sick part of successful people really, really appreciating the value of their education is that they can’t seem to understand (learning problem?) how it came about! If someone is self-educated and wildly successful, well, good on them. If you went through the system and used up, soaked up what your teachers GAVE you and you became successful, then you OWE teachers. I know that sticks in some peoples’ craws, but you only can brag if you truly did it all by yourself. So much for the financial community valuing their educations. They are selfish ingrates who probably trash their mothers too.

With all the talk of comparing different retirement plan options – with or without Social Security – I am saddened by the fact that our politician class has chosen to “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

I have been retired under SURS (and TRS) since January, 1992. At the time of my retirement, I really didn’t have a good understanding of how my retirement plan really works – but I have learned a lot since 1992.

Back in 2006 I pulled together some data comparing SURS and the University of California Retirement Plan which, at that time, were very similar in terms of number of members and level of benefits offered. The main difference was how they had been funded. This comparison convinced me that, had SURS been properly funded by the State from the beginning, it would have saved a huge amount of money for Illinois taxpayers – and also provided a good, stable retirement plan for SURS retirees.

I supported pension reform (although Tier 2 goes too far) and I support lowering wages throughout the state workforce, for the most part state employees are over paid.

However, Rauner’s idea is stupid for several reasons most importantly because the State will not be able to attract good employees. It’s already too much of a political dumping ground, this proposal would actually make it worse because the only people who would work for the State would be the ones that can’t really work anywhere else for that kind of money.

Also, is this how Bruce Rauner runs his businesses? What are their retirement plans?

@John Twig10:47AM=Which employees under SURS are coordinated with Social Security?

Yes, they do exist. In 30 years out of thousands of employees, I could count the Social Security coordinated on the fingers of both hands. It seems a few,(not all) programs that were funded by federal grants had the Social Security requirement written into the federal law that authorized the grant money. This may have become more standard recently, I don’t know.

Just this whole idea of “change the rules in the middle of the Game” (of Work Life) for thousands of Government workers is just plain–and blatantly so–UNjust, and that’s the part a rich cad like br will NEVER get…!

I’m not going to spend the time re-checking it (RNUG, you might want to), but the last time I checked the rate of defined benefit pension plans among very large, heavily unionized employers (Hello there: sound like the State of Illinois?) was virtually unchanged. Much of what Rauner (and others) say on this topic is apples to oranges.

and again, as in the past, I am always astonished when people like Rauner, who have a great, great deal, have the temerity to tell people who have little (compared to them) that they should be willing to get by with less

I should have also clarified my SERS comment, which -dupage- did for me, to include the groups like ISP that mostly do not pay into SS. I believe there are some non-sworn / civil service titles in ISP that do pay into SS.

–and again, as in the past, I am always astonished when people like Rauner, who have a great, great deal, have the temerity to tell people who have little (compared to them) that they should be willing to get by with less–

The idea that we, as a community, should commit ourselves to ensure that folks can go see a doctor without going bankrupt is considered Stalinesque in some circles.

Not in Canada, or Germany, or Japan, or Israel, or Norway, or the rest of the civilized world where access to healthcare is considered a public utility like water or electricity. But among the home-grown willful ignororami.